Anti-Zionists, 9/11 Truthers: Major Defense Contractor Blocks Anything With 'WikiLeaks' In URL | TPMMuckraker

Mind you, not all "capitalists" are this insane; but:

How to keep your employees ignorant and your profit margin in selling weapons of mass destruction for murdering anyone and everyone who is offended by your supposed right to be a capitalistic swine (it's Biblical):

The image is allegedly "what the Daily Beast looks like on a company computer." I don't doubt it. Note how WikiLeaks is lined out. It may, and likely does, mean that the links are blocked/useless.

The nation's biggest defense contractors, who employ thousands of people with security clearances, are taking steps to restrict their access to Wikileaks, including one company which is blocking employees from accessing any website, including news stories, with "wikileaks" in the URL.

via Major Defense Contractor Blocks Anything With 'WikiLeaks' In URL | TPMMuckraker.

To Libertarians, 9/11 Truthers, Anti-WikiLeakers

I am a 9/11 Truther, and I say that anti-WikiLeakers who are also anti-Zionists need to rethink their wild, knee-jerk, short-sighted, initial conclusions about WikiLeaks. The Zionists/Neocons are out to crush WikiLeaks. It's not just a matter of convenient timing either where WikiLeaks spills what the imperial sycophants had to say to each other via their internal cables, which were not very secret at all since they were readily accessible by a mere Private First Class, and that WikiLeaks is now being shut down by the Zionists after the Mossad has finished leaking that dictatorial Arab/Sunni leaders are as bad as those Zionist in that they too want the U.S. to do the dirty work of destroying their supposed rival, the Shiite Iranians.

WikiLeaks and Zionism

WikiLeaks is not a friend of the Zionists. Anything leaked to WikiLeaks about the Zionists will be likewise leaked by WikiLeaks. The public just has not been told yet whether WikiLeaks has received and is vetting any such anti-Zionist materials.

WikiLeaks is not in the business of regurgitating what's been on alternative sites. It is about releasing material never released before. If it doesn't receive such anti-Zionist materials, if no one ever leaks such materials to WikiLeaks, WikiLeaks cannot be held responsible for the lack of anti-Zionist, internal-government/corporate documents.

Could an entity create such documents and submit them? Yes it could. That's why WikiLeaks' job is not an easy one. It must gauge the validity of submissions. I don't envy them the task.

People Mistakenly Afraid to be Truth-Tellers/Leakers

For a variety of reasons, people are afraid to leak. The primary reasons people don't leak are as follows:

  1. They have been brainwashed via the political-socialization process of the military-industrial complex
  2. They don't want to harm the source of their personal compensation
  3. They are afraid of getting caught and facing the wrath of the Empire.

The last one is the primary reason why those who contemplate leaking hesitate. However, they need to consider that Bradley Manning bragged about leaking. Otherwise, he might never have been apprehended.

Leaking Illegal "State Secrets" is Not Illegal!

There is also the false propaganda being pumped out now by the Empire that leaking is illegal. It is not illegal, not when the leaked materials concern illegal government activity. All of the wars are illegal. They were all started via deliberate lies told to the people who, had they known in sufficient numbers that they were being lied to, would not have gone along with the wars. The list of lies is legion.

Government agencies and corporations that are claiming that WikiLeaks is illegal are flat out wrong. WikiLeaks has exposed illegal activity, and the governments and corporations are engaged in further illegality by deceiving the people about it all.

Hillary Clinton's Hypocrisy

Julian Assange is absolutely correct that Hillary Clinton should not be the Secretary of State because she ordered the people in the State Department to due the illegal bidding of the CIA when the CIA asked for the State Department to illegally spy on U.N. diplomats. Yet, Hillary Clinton will turn around boldfaced and say that it is WikiLeaks that is illegally undermining diplomacy. How can U.N. diplomats conduct their negotiations in an atmosphere where the U.S. State Department spies on them for the CIA?

Of course, we had knowledge that the George W. Bush administration was spying on U.N. diplomats. At the time, many Democrats bemoaned it. Many of those same Democrats are backing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. It is utterly shameful, transparent hypocrisy.

On Boycotting Amazon and PayPal

Yesterday, I posted how Daniel Ellsberg has called for boycotting for deleting WikiLeaks' cloud-computing account with Amazon. He was premature. I would rather have seen Daniel write an open letter to Amazon that would have also been hand delivered to all the members of the board and to the top executives spelling out why Amazon was wrong and what Daniel will be doing if Amazon doesn't reverse course.

The same applies to PayPal.

Plenty of times, Amazon has been asked to pull a book only to restore it after hearing arguments from the other side. I suspect PayPal is similar.

I don't fault Daniel Ellsberg for not wanting to wait though. His reaction is understandable. He's exasperated. It's hard not to be to the extent that one doesn't want to cut any entity any slack. However, Amazon and PayPal and others have not heard the word enough yet for that. Things haven't been put into stark enough contrasts for them. It is coming though. The time for finally choosing is coming. Ages come and go.

We shouldn't be in the business of seeking to do economic harm in order to get our way. We do though have the perfect right not to support those who are doing evil and who refuse to repent of it. First though, tell them about the plank in their eyes. I say this as a reminder to myself as well. It requires vigilance to avoid falling back into old, bad patterns of behavior that we hate in others.

We have Amazon links on this site. We accept donations via PayPal too, not that we have sold books or that there have been many donation via PayPal. If they want to cut off the Church for saying that WikiLeaks is not engaged in illegal activity but is rather exposing it, that will be their decision and they will have to live with the consequences for having sided with the darkside rather than with the light of truth.

May they do the right thing for the sake of their own souls and all those they influence; otherwise, may they fall of their own top-heaviness.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in WikiLeaks. Bookmark the permalink.